We're number 31? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: We're number 31? (/thread-19655.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: We're number 31? (/thread-19655.html)
RE: We're number 31? - Brickcity - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 10:16 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(05-12-2020, 09:51 AM)Brickcity Wrote: I'll answer your question for you. ;-) For the love of God, YES, Shaw should have made those QB switches much earlier than he did. Let's take a look at each of them, shall we?However bad Nunes was, Nottingham was that much worse. Dude couldn't even hold the starting job at Columbia. He was thus BY DEFINITION not an FBS-caliber QB. Nunes clearly did beat him in the QB competition.
2012 Nunes was God awful. Other than one quarter against USC and the Arizona game, he didn't play like a D1 QB. How does Shaw not give Nottingham a shot? I have no inside info but have to wonder if there was a personality clash between him and Notthingam. You can also argue that Shaw should have started Hogan a game or two earlier. Either way, having your starting QB repeatedly throw passes at the feat of his receivers is no bueno.
Funny story, in the Arizona game Nunes scored a pair of rushing touchdowns on the same sort of QB option run play. According to a player on that offense, he went rogue and called his own number both times out of an offensive package not suited for that play. The Zona defense was simply that bad. Shaw was furious.
(05-12-2020, 09:51 AM)Brickcity Wrote: 2016 Burns wins the starting job, Shaw replaces him with (RS) soph Chryst.Chryst should've at the very least come in against the abject disaster that was the home Colorado loss.
Beginning with the UW game, Burns did not play like a Pac-12 level QB. It's true that he played against the much easier part of the schedule so it's possible that Chryst might have been no better. So, I'll give Shaw the benefit of the doubt on this one.
(05-12-2020, 09:51 AM)Brickcity Wrote: 2017 Chryst the obvious starter after 2016, Shaw replaces him with Costello.I was at the SDSU game too. Chryst didn't just play poorly, he looked like he accidentally turned up his video game's difficulty from rookie to all-star and gave the controller to a toddler. All 3 of his interceptions were lame ducks into triple coverage. Do you know what someone being triple-covered means? SOMEONE ELSE IS OPEN.
Chryst deserved to start the 2017 as the starting QB. But, he crapped the bed big time against SDSU (I was at that game and it was truly a pathetic performance.) Then, he follows up that masterpiece with arguably an even worse performance against UCLA. A game we would have lost by multiple TDs had he not gotten hurt. Costello comes in and we end up blowing out them. I'd argue that a good coach - that is, one who prioritizes winning (and really, isn't that one of the main criteria of a "good coach") would have kept Costello the starter for the remainder of the year. Once Chryst returns from injury, Shaw holds a sham of a "QB competition" where I think we all knew who would win out, though undeservedly. After Chryst "wins" the competition, he has his true masterpiece of a season in which he makes Josh Nunes look like the second-coming of Andrew Luck: against OSU, I saw one of the worst QB performances I'd ever seen in my life...among any QB at any level. At halftime, Shaw STILL refuses to make the QB change. Even the announcers were perplexed. Had Harrison Phillips not made the play of a lifetime by getting the strip and fumble recovery, Stanford loses that game. This was the moment that I realized that Shaw cares less about winning than he does preserving some weird, artificial pecking order among his QBs.
(05-12-2020, 09:51 AM)Brickcity Wrote: 2020 Shaw ... allows Mills to take over from Costello.Remember KJ played multiple games (Oregon and Colorado) last season hurt. Against Oregon he dinged his hand against a Duck helmet, and after that he couldn't throw a pass longer than like 10 yards. Wish I knew what went on there - whether they tried pulling him and he refused, or what.
I don't know what Shaw said (or didn't say) to Costello after the season concluded, so I don't have a strong opinion on this one.
(05-12-2020, 09:51 AM)Brickcity Wrote: Bottom line: Shaw just is not that competitive. Sorry, but true.In a recent interview Shaw did state he was excited for a "healthy" competition for QB2. He LOVES Tanner McKee. And after Jack West's...uh...can we even call it a "performance?" against UCLA, I love Tanner McKee too.
Part of me thinks Shaw is scared of a true QB1 competition because of his consistent record of picking the wrong one. But I have to disagree with the "bottom line" of Shaw "not being competitive." He is. You can't be a P5 coach and not be. He fetishizes "seniority" and "familiarity with the playbook" as more important criteria for winning his competition.
Interestingly, I believe we tried to simplify the offense somewhat this year, and added changes. Many more swing passes, screens, and RPO looks. Throwing on first down...a LOT. Pritchard's influence is seeping in. I believe many people just see 4-8 and think we didn't change anything.
Point well taken on Nottingham. Perhaps I'm so scarred by Shaw's refusal to put in Costello at any point during the OSU game that I have this view of him. I do believe he wasn't doing what he probably knew he needed to do to win that game. There is no way he didn't see what everyone watching that game saw: Chryst was simply inept and on the verge of losing that game. And, Costello had looked fairly good to very good in all of his appearances that season. Shaw was willing to sacrifice that game and, thus, I have concluded he's just not that competitive. Put it this way, would Harbaugh have made the same mistake? You can fault Harbaugh on a few things, but he has competition flowing throug his icy veins!
RE: We're number 31? - Papa John - 05-12-2020
Would you have started Tavita Pritchard or true freshman Andrew Luck in 2008? I'm pretty sure that was Harbaugh's call, and he chose TP (and the team finished 5-7). TP was 147-254 (57.9%) for 1633 yds, 10 TDs and 13 INTs in 12 games. As I recall, there were some folks calling for a QB change that year.
I can't believe I have to write this, but it's ludicrous to suggest that David Shaw is not competitive. Poor decision-maker re: personnel? He's not perfect, but more often than not he's right. Maybe it's his level demeanor that makes folks think he doesn't care, but I can guarantee you that he knows a lot more about coaching than anyone on this discussion board. He's the winningest coach in school history, won the Pac-12 North 4 times, the Pac-12 CG 3 times, won 2 out of 3 Rose Bowls, 4x conference Coach of the Year, etc. That's a pretty impressive resume for someone who's not competitive!
RE: We're number 31? - Goose - 05-13-2020
(05-12-2020, 09:48 PM)Papa John Wrote: Would you have started Tavita Pritchard or true freshman Andrew Luck in 2008? I'm pretty sure that was Harbaugh's call, and he chose TP (and the team finished 5-7). TP was 147-254 (57.9%) for 1633 yds, 10 TDs and 13 INTs in 12 games. As I recall, there were some folks calling for a QB change that year.
I'm sure everybody on this board has heard the story that JH was considering it and that Luck discouraged the idea, saying that he felt he wasn't ready. I think it is more that Luck didn't want to get killed. That team wasn't very good, and did not, in general, protect very well. Being competitive sometimes means looking at the longer view. Coaches don't want to admit it, but sometimes when you aren't good you have to pick your spots in order to maximize your total wins.
RE: We're number 31? - Papa John - 05-13-2020
Actually, Goose, I hadn't heard that it was Luck's suggestion that he not start in 2008.
RE: We're number 31? - BobK - 05-13-2020
The thought was that Oliver Luck Mr Luck thought Andrew should be redshirted
RE: We're number 31? - Goose - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 08:49 AM)Papa John Wrote: Actually, Goose, I hadn't heard that it was Luck's suggestion that he not start in 2008.
What I heard, but obviously can't verify, is that Luck heard rumblings from JH that maybe they should burn his shirt. Supposedly Luck indicated at that point he didn't think he was ready. What he actually said (if any of this is true) I don't know. I do know the plan was for Luck to sit out that year and he was not planning to play. Burning the shirt mid-season on a team not going anyplace did seem to be a bad idea.
RE: We're number 31? - Brickcity - 05-13-2020
(05-12-2020, 09:48 PM)Papa John Wrote: Would you have started Tavita Pritchard or true freshman Andrew Luck in 2008? I'm pretty sure that was Harbaugh's call, and he chose TP (and the team finished 5-7). TP was 147-254 (57.9%) for 1633 yds, 10 TDs and 13 INTs in 12 games. As I recall, there were some folks calling for a QB change that year.
I can't believe I have to write this, but it's ludicrous to suggest that David Shaw is not competitive. Poor decision-maker re: personnel? He's not perfect, but more often than not he's right. Maybe it's his level demeanor that makes folks think he doesn't care, but I can guarantee you that he knows a lot more about coaching than anyone on this discussion board. He's the winningest coach in school history, won the Pac-12 North 4 times, the Pac-12 CG 3 times, won 2 out of 3 Rose Bowls, 4x conference Coach of the Year, etc. That's a pretty impressive resume for someone who's not competitive!
I'm not suggesting that Shaw isn't more competitive than the average person off the street. I'm sure he is. But, I don't think he's competitive by the standard of a D1 head coach. His teams up through 2013 still included a lot of Harbaugh's recruits, and I imagine retained much of the culture of the previous regime. Even the players on 2015 were indirectly due to Harbaugh. Look at it this way: even younger players like Christian McCaffrey - sophomores - had been a senior in high school in 2013, watching Stanford's success and thus feeling drawn to the school (well, he and others in his class who didn't have fathers who starred at the school.) The point being that the guys on that team had watched the success of Stanford in 2012 and 2013, when Stanford still had a ton of Harbaugh's players.
That's my long way of saying that, while Shaw should obviously get some credit for those Pac-12 championships, much of it should go to Harbaugh. Put it another way: had Shaw (instead of Harbaugh) been the head coach in 2007, what kind of seasons do you think he would have had in the ensuing years? My guess is that most of them would have been losing seasons.
His lack of competitiveness extends not just to selecting a weaker QB to start but also refusing to hire an accomplished offensive coordinator whom he could hand play calling duties over to. But, he'd rather lose more games and be "in control" than win more games and have to admit he's not that good an offensive coordinator.
RE: We're number 31? - Papa John - 05-13-2020
I don't know that Stanford football 2008 was terrible. We beat Oregon State, which had a good team that year. We lost three winnable games on the road versus Notre Dame, UCLA and Oregon and then the wheels fell off versus USC in the fourth quarter and all game versus Cal, which probably contributed to the sense that the season was not salvageable.
It's a moot point if Oliver Luck was calling the shots, but from what I recall, Andrew's teammates were raving about him during his first year on campus--like with Christian McCaffrey--so I could have seen making the switch after, say, the Notre Dame game, when Stanford was only 3-3 overall but 2-1 in the conference. His first three games he would have faced UA at home (a game we actually won 24-23), a bad UCLA team on the road (we lost 20-23), and a very bad WSU team at home (we won 58-0). And by then maybe the offense is better prepared--the defense was OK but not great--for the Oregon, USC, Cal gauntlet in November.
I have to believe that Stanford would have made a bowl game in 2008 with a midseason switch to Luck. We had Toby Gerhart and Anthony Kimble in the backfield and solid receivers in Doug Baldwin and Coby Fleener. The O-line was decent.
RE: We're number 31? - BostonCard - 05-13-2020
Everyone was on board with the plan to redshirt Luck when he first showed up on campus. Harbaugh started to have second thoughts partly through the season, but waffled between burning Luck's shirt and preserving it. He brought it up to the Lucks after Tavita suffered a concussion in the game against Arizona, but at that point, the Lucks didn't want to burn Andrew's redshirt for the last five games of the season.
BC
RE: We're number 31? - JohnR34231 - 05-13-2020
Chryst's performance against SDSU in 2017 was indeed horrendous. Let's not make it worse than it was though.
First, he only had two picks, not three.
Second, only one was into triple coverage. The other was a jump ball to JJAW which he underthrew. The SDSU defensive back was right there for an easy pick.
RE: We're number 31? - SamuelMcF - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 12:27 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Chryst's performance against SDSU in 2017 was indeed horrendous. Let's not make it worse than it was though.
First, he only had two picks, not three.
Second, only one was into triple coverage. The other was a jump ball to JJAW which he underthrew. The SDSU defensive back was right there for an easy pick.
Lipstick on a dead pig.
I was at that game and it felt like basically all his throws were into blanket coverage. Maybe the absolutely terrible triple coverage pick is just so burnt into my memory it overrode everything else.
RE: We're number 31? - akiddoc - 05-13-2020
Shaw knew that Rosen was a talent. He would have been the starter pretty rapidly if he had been at Stanford. Obviously Shaw did not think he was that coachable, and for a while at UCLA that proved to be true. Shaw, like many head coaches in the NCAA, doesn't like to change starters quickly, especially at QB. I don't think he's that unusual. Sometimes he turns out to be right, sometimes he's wrong.
RE: We're number 31? - Mick - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 10:09 AM)Brickcity Wrote: His lack of competitiveness extends not just to selecting a weaker QB to start but also refusing to hire an accomplished offensive coordinator whom he could hand play calling duties over to. But, he'd rather lose more games and be "in control" than win more games and have to admit he's not that good an offensive coordinator.
Have to agree. I don't want to agree, but that's consistent with my observations.
RE: We're number 31? - Papa John - 05-13-2020
So by extension, Jim Harbaugh doesn't know how to evaluate offensive coordinators? Per ESPN, here are the offense rankings in terms of efficiency and overall from 2007-2010, when David Shaw was the offensive coordinator under JH:
2007--42.83 (77)
2008--65.88 (24)
2009--83.74 (3)
2010--91.91 (2)
RE: We're number 31? - SamuelMcF - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 02:52 PM)Papa John Wrote: So by extension, Jim Harbaugh doesn't know how to evaluate offensive coordinators? Per ESPN, here are the offense rankings in terms of efficiency and overall from 2007-2010, when David Shaw was the offensive coordinator under JH:
2007--42.83 (77)
2008--65.88 (24)
2009--83.74 (3)
2010--91.91 (2)
Harbaugh is great at evaluating offensive coordinators.
Greg Roman was hired as run game coordinator in 2009, and promoted to co-OC and associate head coach in 2010...Shaw got the playcard ripped out of his hands. Great evaluation by Harbaugh.
RE: We're number 31? - stupac2 - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 03:58 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(05-13-2020, 02:52 PM)Papa John Wrote: So by extension, Jim Harbaugh doesn't know how to evaluate offensive coordinators? Per ESPN, here are the offense rankings in terms of efficiency and overall from 2007-2010, when David Shaw was the offensive coordinator under JH:
2007--42.83 (77)
2008--65.88 (24)
2009--83.74 (3)
2010--91.91 (2)
Harbaugh is great at evaluating offensive coordinators.
Greg Roman was hired as run game coordinator in 2009, and promoted to co-OC and associate head coach in 2010...Shaw got the playcard ripped out of his hands. Great evaluation by Harbaugh.
On the other hand, Roman is a great example of how hard these judgments are. His NFL reputation has gone on a fun roller coaster over the years, from high with the Niners early to low at the end, very very low with the Bills (fired after a loss!), then "clear head coach candidate" with the Ravens. Maybe making these judgments is hard in real time?
RE: We're number 31? - Brickcity - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 02:27 PM)Mick Wrote:(05-13-2020, 10:09 AM)Brickcity Wrote: His lack of competitiveness extends not just to selecting a weaker QB to start but also refusing to hire an accomplished offensive coordinator whom he could hand play calling duties over to. But, he'd rather lose more games and be "in control" than win more games and have to admit he's not that good an offensive coordinator.
Have to agree. I don't want to agree, but that's consistent with my observations.
A friend of mine made this point very early in Shaw's tenure. I refused to believe it myself. Granted, there wasn't nearly as much evidence back then. But there is a lot now.
I see a very different personality in a guy like Jerod Haase. Which is why, despite some fits and starts since he took over, I'm bullish on the program's future.
RE: We're number 31? - BostonCard - 05-13-2020
I mean, I'm hopeful for Haase as well, but until he develops the team into a consistent winner, I would take Shaw's results (warts and all) all day every day before I take Haase's. I mean, Haase has had four seasons at Stanford and the furthest he's ever gotten was the second round of the NIT (he got cheated out of a return by coronavirus). The guy has exactly one winning Pac-12 season, which is exactly how many losing seasons Shaw has.
Maybe in three or four years, after Haase has made it deep into the NCAA tourney a couple times and Shaw has gone bowl-less several times, it would be time to re-assess, but for goodness sakes, let's actually see proof that Haase can lead the program to the tourney before we anoint him as the more likely to be successful coach.
BC
RE: We're number 31? - Brickcity - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 07:46 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I mean, I'm hopeful for Haase as well, but until he develops the team into a consistent winner, I would take Shaw's results (warts and all) all day every day before I take Haase's. I mean, Haase has had four seasons at Stanford and the furthest he's ever gotten was the second round of the NIT (he got cheated out of a return by coronavirus). The guy has exactly one winning Pac-12 season, which is exactly how many losing seasons Shaw has.
Maybe in three or four years, after Haase has made it deep into the NCAA tourney a couple times and Shaw has gone bowl-less several times, it would be time to re-assess, but for goodness sakes, let's actually see proof that Haase can lead the program to the tourney before we anoint him as the more likely to be successful coach.
BC
Of course, Haase has a lot to prove. But, remember, Shaw inherited a program that was ranked 4th in the nation after its bowl game. Haase inherited a program that was irrelevant. Or, for those car fans out there, Shaw inherited a Ferrari and appears to be morphing it into a Pinto.
RE: We're number 31? - JohnR34231 - 05-14-2020
(05-13-2020, 07:46 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I mean, I'm hopeful for Haase as well, but until he develops the team into a consistent winner, I would take Shaw's results (warts and all) all day every day before I take Haase's. I mean, Haase has had four seasons at Stanford and the furthest he's ever gotten was the second round of the NIT (he got cheated out of a return by coronavirus). The guy has exactly one winning Pac-12 season, which is exactly how many losing seasons Shaw has.
Maybe in three or four years, after Haase has made it deep into the NCAA tourney a couple times and Shaw has gone bowl-less several times, it would be time to re-assess, but for goodness sakes, let's actually see proof that Haase can lead the program to the tourney before we anoint him as the more likely to be successful coach.
BC
Yeah, I agree it is a little premature to jump on the "Shaw sucks, Haase looks promising." bandwagon.
I also think the "Shaw has taken a Ferrari and turned it into a Yugo." argument is somewhat overdone.